Comments on: Foot Strike Follies: New Study Suggests Heel Striking is Better, Or Does It?

By: 5 Surprising Things I Have Learned Since I Started Running

5 Surprising Things I Have Learned Since I Started Running — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 20:53:14 +0000

[…] are all different, that not everyone is meant to be a midsole striker. A few months later, I read this article which suggests that for some of us, heel striking is actually a more efficient way of […]

By: Pete Larson

Pete Larson — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to tdhurst.

I think the pattern that is emerging is that short stride, forefoot strike may be beneficial for reducing loading of the knee and hip, but may increase loading of the foot and ankle. So, it's a matter of knowing where you tend to have trouble and playing with form and footwear accordingly. If you look at historical patterns from the 1970’s, we basically saw a shift in injury prevalence from the Achilles to the knee as the decade went on and shoe got bigger and more cushioned. This also seems to support the idea that more minimal shoes put the ankle and foot at greater risk, but that the knee may be better off.
Sent from my iPad

By: tdhurst

tdhurst — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I'd be interested in longer term studies that discuss injury rate before I believe this. Too many "normal", heel strikers seem to have knee or hip surgeries, while the data for mid or forefoot strikers major injury rates over time just aren't available yet.

There's a lot more to running than speed, carb burn and mechanical efficiency.

By: Pete Larson

Pete Larson — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to bob baks.

Solid!

By: Cody R.

Cody R. — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

changing strikes makes muscles different muscles work other ways that they're not used to, not surprised that one can become "less efficient" right after changing, though with more time spent in the other form, makes sense to become more efficient with more strength

By: Pete Larson

Pete Larson — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to John.

I agree John. Science can highlight general principles, but rarely does it identify what is best for an individual. For example, even in this study a few of the rearfoot strikers did better running on their forefoot, so in their case switching might be a good thing even though the vast majority did worse. From a coaching or clinical perspective, focusing on the individual is all that matters.

----
Pete Larson's Web Links:
-My book: Tread Lightly: http://ow.ly/bdUO0
-Blog: https://runblogger.com
-Twitter: http://twitter.com/Runblogger
-Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/Runbl...
-Discussion Forum: https://runblogger.com/forum

By: Zedric Dimalanta

Zedric Dimalanta — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Often missing in any mainstream blog discussion (such as the one in the NY Times Well blog) is a sense of a larger context for why individuals choose to run with a particular footstrike. When I switched to being primarily a forefoot/midfoot striker last year, I already knew based on months of researching the topic that (a) I would likely be slower, perhaps even significantly, at least initially; (b) I would likely be expending more energy over the same distance as I would be heelstriking; and (c) I stood a very good chance of minimizing my running-related knee and hip injuries.

I didn't mind point (a) because at this point in my life, I'm not actively looking to set new PRs every time I run, I actually wanted point (b) because at the time of the footstrike change, I had a goal of losing a significant amount of weight, and as for point (c), that's the main reason I had for deciding on the footstrike change.

As with a lot of things, context, and understanding that context, is key, and I think some of the discussion of study findings (such as in the linked NY Times blog) tend to gloss over the importance of that.

By: Will Musto

Will Musto — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to bob baks.

Great job on the PR!

By: Navre

Navre — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

As health has kept me from running, I've been watching more people run. Midfoot strike with a short stride seems to be the norm. Odd to see someone overstriding anymore. Feet seem to be under center of mass most of the time. Just anecdotal, unscientific observations from the North Shore of Boston

By: Amanda Loudin

Amanda Loudin — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

When I made the switch a couple of years back, it was with injury prevention in mind, not speed. I would say I definitely lost some economy with the initial switch. But today, that has all settled. Most importantly, my body has never felt better. That's the best reason to make the switch, IF you are someone who has an injury pattern as a heel striker and can't point to obvious training errors. It is amazing to me how much the coverage of this topic gets garbled, and how much of it focuses on the foot strike and no other factors.

By: FernandoL.

FernandoL. — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Speed increasing with heel strike? I don´t see it. If you have a look to elite runners, I would say a majority of them use either a midfoot or a forefoot strike. The fact that many of the runners who were supposed to be ff strikers were actually mid foot strikers changes everything in this study. In my opinion, differences between ff and mf strikes are bigger than it is usually said (they are often considered as almost the same thing, when they are not). When I first switched to minimalist shoes, my natural mf strike became a ff one. My calves had problems to face this change. But, with the time, my natural mf strike "came back"...and my calves appreciated it.

Finally it is really a shame that debate about minimalism is so focused on foot strike in many forums, as Peter metiones. Cadence is more important; and influence in cadence (making it longer) is the "evil" of modern running shoes.

By: Martijn Jorritsma

Martijn Jorritsma — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

My two cents: too much emphasis is put on footstrike. I made "The Change" 2 years ago through the Chi Running book. I started out with the posture excercises, started working with the lean and went from there. The whole time being very aware of landing on the forefoot. After about six months i was running one of my long runs and a man passing me by on his bike commented: why are you running on your toes? A comment that frustrated me at the time, but in reflection proved to be a wake up call.
I literally "tried" landing on the "best part of the foot" instead of focusing on the most important aspect of my running form: posture.
Since improving my form (i'm leaning more towards Pose Method atm) I have achieved a much better running efficiency. The best step I have taken is joining the athletics club in my local town and learning new technique drills with a really good trainer.
Last night I ran 12X400m on the track and I noticed I'm really not paying attention to footstrike at all anymore. It's much more about posture, cadence and relaxing my body. I did clearly feel (through the soles of my Adipure Gazelles) that I'm now naturally landing on the cushy bit between my forefoot and midfoot, then my heel dips down to the ground and then the soles of my feet roll of the ground again. It sure feels a lot better than pounding down heel first.